Treaty Talks: the role of ANTaR and the people’s movement in supporting Indigenous calls for a treaty process.
Dr David Cooper
National Coordinator, ANTaR

Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today, the Ngunnawal people. I’d also like to thank AIATSIS for inviting me, as National Coordinator of ANTaR, to contribute to this important seminar series and, more generally, for the valuable contribution the Institute has made over many years to research and debate about Indigenous issues.
A little bit about my background. I began as National Coordinator for ANTaR about 18 months ago. Before that I completed a PhD here in Canberra at ANU, based on my experience working for 10 years in the area of Indigenous heritage protection in the Northern Territory.
ANTaR is an independent, national, and mainly non-Indigenous organisation set up in 1997 to help protect native title rights and advance the reconciliation process in Australia. ANTaR’s beginnings trace to the height of the Wik backlash in 1997, when angry images from the bush were appearing nightly on television news, together with very emotional appeals from individual farmers to save the family farm. The Howard Government and farmers’ organisations were in full swing whipping up fear and spreading misinformation about the consequences of Wik.
In the midst of this, representatives from a number of non-government organisations were invited to a meeting in Canberra of the National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title or NIWG. Represented at this historic meeting were the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS), the ACTU, the Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA), Oxfam/Community Aid Abroad, World Vision, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Youth Policy Action Coalition, the Edmund Rice Centre and the Australian Catholic Social Justice Welfare Commission. The NIWG asked these NGOs to join with a huge grouping of individuals expressing concern about extinguishment of native title. The result was a peoples’ movement which became known as ANTaR. The first Sea of Hands was held in front of Parliament House here in Canberra in October 1997.
The circumstances of ANTaR’s beginnings are different from those we find ourselves in now. While the people’s movement has grown considerably since that time, we now face a changed political climate, with the urgency of a native title ‘crisis’ largely neutralised within complex policy and judicial processes, and a hiatus in the reconciliation process. This changed climate has required us to reconsider and adapt our goals. 
When ANTaR was set up, there was little consideration of how long it would need to exist as an organisation, however, we have recognised the importance of being here for the long haul. Not surprisingly, these factors have also been central to the re-emergence of Indigenous calls for a treaty process. In the language which has emerged at the end of the first decade of the reconciliation process, it seeks to set an agenda for dealing with the ‘unfinished business’ of reconciliation. I think by now we all realise that achieving the goals of this agenda will take many years, and just as the first decade of the reconciliation process has been required to get us to this point, the likelihood is that it will take at least another decade of hard work to begin to see the fruits of a treaty campaign.
In furthering consideration of the issue of a treaty process, what I’d like to focus on today is to reflect on the significance and needs of educating and securing support from non-Indigenous Australians for a treaty process. 
As part of the ‘national conversation’, as Evelyn Scott has put it, that we need to have, the need for education in the non-Indigenous community about the issue of treaty is paramount. Specifically,
•	majority support from non-Indigenous Australians will be essential in convincing any federal government to embark on such a process and in seeing it to fruition;
•	there is an obvious public interest in the issue as one which will fundamentally shape the nation’s future, and;
•	there is already underway a parallel process of education and consultation within the Indigenous community about the issue.
This last point is particularly significant for non-Indigenous Australians. As you may know, ATSIC has established a s13 committee, the National Treaty Support Group, to advise on, amongst other things, an Indigenous information and awareness campaign and plebiscite on the issue. The information and awareness campaign is already underway and a plebiscite is planned for 2002. 
In doing this, ATSIC has recognised the need for broad Indigenous support and endorsement for a treaty process before formal negotiations can occur. Apart from anything else, it is unlikely that governments and non-Indigenous Australians will take the initiative seriously unless broad Indigenous support is demonstrated in such a way.  It is appropriate, then, that a parallel process of education in the non-Indigenous community occurs at the same time.
The other important implication for non-Indigenous Australians is that any non-Indigenous campaign of support must respond to, rather than attempt to lead or pre-empt, the Indigenous agenda.
Indigenous people must be given the opportunity to form a consensus about what it is they want and, as importantly, what the process should be. 
Process, in relation to such an issue, and particularly given the diverse interests and locally-based perspectives of sovereignty within the Indigenous community, is as important as the final product of a treaty process.
This is a point on which we need to be very clear. There is at present, in my view, undue focus by non-Indigenous people on the content and form of a treaty document or documents. This is understandable, but nonetheless not helpful. It is just as important to educate non-Indigenous Australians about the central significance of process and to explain to non-Indigenous Australia that the form and content of any resulting documents or agreements will flow from the processes established in the first place. The quality of the outcomes will depend on the time and attention paid to ensuring that the processes are right. 
This issue was discussed in some detail in ANTaR’s submission last year to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation’s discussion paper on the legislative requirements of reconciliation. Our submission pointed out that a major reason for the success of the treaty process in Canada was that it was given plenty of time, with a great deal of thought and discussion allowed for preliminary issues, giving later negotiations over substance the best chance of succeeding.
In the present Australian context, the federal government refuses even to support discussion of the idea of a treaty process. The Indigenous position is still in the preliminary stages of taking shape. We need to guard against getting ahead of ourselves, both on process as well as on matters of detail.
I am not suggesting that questions of content should not be discussed at this stage. There is, in fact, much that Indigenous people have already consistently argued for that is relevant here. The strong support that has been expressed recently by Indigenous leaders and from within the broader Indigenous community for a treaty process has a long history, of which non-Indigenous Australians need to be made aware. Indeed, an understanding of this background is essential to understand the current calls for a treaty process.
Over the last two decades, for instance, there have been a number of initiatives and reports which have raised and given substance to the idea of a treaty process, and to the kinds of issues which could be the subject of a treaty or treaties. 
The Aboriginal Treaty Committee’s call for a treaty in 1979, taken up by the National Aboriginal Conference – but called a Makarrata to allay concerns about using the term treaty - was one. The Bicentennial year of 1988 saw the then Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s commitment to negotiate a treaty. This was called a ‘compact’ for similar reasons. Significantly, this offer was made in the context of and in response to the Barunga Statement, a set of demands to the federal government, including the call for a treaty, by the Northern and Central Land Councils, which was presented to Hawke at the Barunga Festival in the Northern Territory in 1988.
In 1991 the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody released an extensive report and list of recommendations, many of which focussed on structural issues underlying racism and Indigenous disadvantage.
But perhaps the most significant background to the current debate came in the wake of the 1992 Mabo decision. The process of negotiation between the Commonwealth Government and Indigenous representatives resulted in an agreement by the Commonwealth in 1993 to a three-tier response to the Mabo decision.  These were:
•	the enactment of native title legislation, which validated existing land titles, and enabled Indigenous peoples to assert their property rights in land under a new regime
•	the establishment of an Indigenous Land Fund, and the Indigenous Land Corporation, to enable the purchase of land for Indigenous peoples and to re-establish an Indigenous land base; and
•	Thirdly, a commitment from the Commonwealth government to negotiate package of social justice measures, to address the widespread disadvantage of Indigenous peoples as a result of colonisation and dispossession. This package of measures was to be called the “Social Justice Package”.
The third stage of this agreement has never been enacted.  However, extensive research and consultation was conducted with Indigenous people throughout Australia in 1994-95, who were well aware and informed about the proposal for legislative and other measures which were to be aimed at equitable outcomes.
ATSIC, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the HREOC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner were invited to produce submissions on the Social Justice Package. These submissions – the product of extensive consultation and discussion within the Indigenous community – were completed in 1995 and detail the elements of a broad Indigenous agenda for change that is essentially being revisited in the current debate over a treaty process. They represent an Indigenous consensus on the major issues.
The Indigenous consultation process undertaken in preparing the three submissions revealed widespread, in principle support for a treaty process, linked to associated regional agreements or sub-treaties.
ATSIC’s view was that "A treaty must forge the ground rules for relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, based on justice and equity and the proper recognition of Indigenous rights." It saw a treaty as a living document, capable of accommodating change and evolution as both cultures change and evolve.
Further, the submissions pointed out that, as a priority, poor public services and living standards had to be addressed. As the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation submission pointed out, Indigenous rights include such matters "…as a right to the socially accepted standards of housing, community environmental health services, personal health services, education, empowerment in the political system, equality under the law – in short, the range of rights which most members of the wider Australian community not only enjoy in their lives and take for granted for themselves, but assume are enjoyed by all others." 
These submissions recognised that the persistent failure of governments to meet basic Indigenous needs required new frameworks. However, the reports not only saw no inconsistency, but in fact proposed a fundamental linkage between so called practical reconciliation measures and a broader rights agenda, including a treaty.
Of course, history records that the Social Justice Package was ignored by the present federal government on its election in 1996, repudiating the agreement negotiated with Indigenous leaders in 1992.
Instead, we saw the Howard government react to the High Court Wik decision with un-negotiated and adverse amendments to the Native Title Act. Ironically, this approach helped to galvanise the people’s movement for reconciliation and, in turn, bolstered by the extent of non-Indigenous support which the people’s movement represented, the renewed push by Indigenous people for a treaty process.
The other significant event has been the winding up of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and with it the formal process of Reconciliation begun in 1991. CAR’s final report stresses the need for a formalised national process for dealing with unfinished business and recommends, amongst other things, the pursuing of treaty talks.
As with the many significant reports before it, the Commonwealth Government’s response has been to ignore CAR’s recommendations. Instead, the Government has initiated a policy response it terms “practical reconciliation”. The term is meant to convey the idea of realistic and genuine outcomes which should be measurable in practical terms.  In reality, ‘practical reconciliation’ appears to be nothing more than a meagre rehash of the old policy order of inadequate programs in health, housing, education, etc.  In this case, the Commonwealth’s policy is specifically framed to counter and discredit a rights-based agenda. The neo-assimilationist and anti-self-determination character of so-called ‘practical reconciliation’ represents a significant road-block in terms of national progress towards reconciliation.
While the present government’s refusal to consider a legislative framework and formal process to advance the reconciliation agenda (let alone more symbolic initiatives, such as a formal national apology to the stolen generations), is clearly counter to the recommendations of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, it is a fact that all governments, both Coalition and Labor, have a history of ignoring or failing to implement the recommendations of inquiries and reports.
And as experience with the Native Title Act has shown, non-binding agreements struck with Indigenous representatives offer no security against repudiation by a subsequent government with a temporary majority. This underlies the need for new approaches which will provide for outcomes which are binding on governments.
Which brings me now to the ongoing role of ANTaR and the people’s movement in supporting an emerging Indigenous treaty campaign.
An important point I would like to make is that we should not imagine that the current road-blocks will be removed simply by removing the present federal government or Prime Minister.
The significance of the present government’s approach lies not just in its control of policy and the machinery of government. It also relies heavily on the ongoing entrenched attitudes and ignorance about Indigenous issues held by many – probably the majority, of non-Indigenous Australians.
Many non-Indigenous Australians remain confronted by the past and fearful of what revisiting that past may mean for their own futures. Public opinion and attitudes remain vulnerable to campaigns of deliberate misinformation.
The AC Nielson Age poll which indicated that 53% of Australians supported the idea of a treaty is an encouraging sign. The result is particularly significant given that there has been virtually no public education about the benefits of a treaty process and given the current federal Government’s public opposition to the idea. But the reality is that this figure needs to be boosted considerably for a future government to feel confident in running with the initiative.
Public attitudes and opinion are therefore arguably the most important areas which must be addressed by any campaign in support of a treaty process, not least because convincing a future federal government to embrace a treaty process will require the demonstration of significant majority support from non-Indigenous Australians.
It will also require a significant expression of bipartisan support. And we need to be prepared for the fact that a treaty process, once initiated, will take a long time and will require the long term engagement and interest of the wider Australian population.
These are some of the main challenges we face. 
Against this, our main strength remains the existing network of national, state and local reconciliation bodies which have built and sustained the people’s movement for reconciliation. 
There are currently three national reconciliation bodies – ANTaR, Reconciliation Australia, which replaces the Council of Aboriginal Reconciliation, and the Federation of State Reconciliation Councils. These bodies support hundreds of local reconciliation groups which carry out a wide variety of activities and events focussed mainly on community education. Local reconciliation groups have already been particularly active in holding public meetings on the issue of a treaty. This network needs to be strengthened and developed – a task made more difficult with the demise of CAR and with it a large slice of federal government funding for the reconciliation process. Capacity building is currently a priority of these organisations, including ANTaR. 
Important as this network is, there is also a need to increase the engagement of other non-government organisations and sectors in educating about and supporting a treaty process.
The experience of ANTaR is illustrative here. From its commencement, ANTaR has worked with various sectors of the (largely) non-Indigenous community in an attempt to broaden the base of non-Indigenous support.
In the lead up to the passing of the Native Title Amendment Act, ANTaR worked closely with a number of sectors with effective results. These groups included:
•	the Ethnic Communities Councils;
•	the ACTU and union networks;
•	Lawyers for Native Title, who developed and launched a statement opposing the amendments;
•	assisting ACFOA to coordinate support from aid agencies. Australian aid agencies generally have a very human rights based approach to development, which they brought to bear in support of Indigenous rights in Australia;
•	AYPAC and the National Union of Students. ANTaR’s youth wing, ReconciliAction, was able to disseminate a great deal of information to youth networks;
•	faith groups, particularly the major Christian churches and the Jewish faith, who took a very strong stand against extinguishment;
•	environment groups and ecological scientists to develop and promote their support for coexistence, through the perspective of environmental protection and respect for Indigenous relationships to land.
ANTaR also assisted Rural Landholders for Coexistence (RLC) to promulgate an alternative view from the bush. RLC was formed to represent the views of farmers who disagreed with the approach of the main farmers’ associations, and was launched in November 1997, at the big Sea of Hands outside Parliament House. RLC members presented the view that coexistence with Aboriginal people was possible through dialogue and negotiation, and that the rights of native title holders deserved the same level of respect as the those of other property holders. RLC has conducted a series of workshops in rural Australia and has produced a Statement of Principles and a publication to guide farmers seeking to enter agreements, Talking Common Ground. ANTaR and RLC are currently developing plans for new ways to work together for the near future.
ANTaR has also worked closely with ACOSS since that first meeting in Canberra. Although ACOSS joins very few other organisations, it is a proud and active member of ANTaR. ACOSS some time ago voted to make Indigenous issues one of its priority policy areas. Last week, for example, ANTaR and ACOSS held a joint seminar here in Canberra, entitled Practical Reconciliation or Treaty Talks: Which way forward for Indigenous social services?  The purpose of the seminar was to provide accurate and detailed information to NGOs in the social and human services sector about the developing Indigenous Treaty campaign and to compare a Treaty process with the "practical reconciliation" proposals of the current Federal Government.
ANTaR plans to hold further seminars in the future targeted at other sectors. In doing so we recognise that ‘practical reconciliation’ rhetoric incorporates the most significant arguments against a treaty process. Practical reconciliation arguments are persuasive because they harness a plethora of common prejudices, factual errors and negative attitudes which exist within the broader community.
An essential task is to understand this broader attitudinal environment so that effective responses can be formulated.
ANTaR has been researching prevailing negative attitudes in Australia and is identifying the dominant arguments against a treaty process, including the underlying arguments and values which form the "sub-text" of the debate. This sub-text, if not addressed and resolved, will undermine and subvert any attempt to persuade people about the potential mutual benefits of a treaty process for all Australians.
Many of these arguments are long-standing and have proven effective and powerful over time. Whether they are applied to Aboriginal land rights, human rights or the prospect of a treaty process, they will continue to touch deep chords with the general public.
The following, for example, are arguments put forward recently by Northern Territory Chief Minister Dennis Burke in the Northern Territory parliament, in support of reducing Aboriginal rights to land and waters in the Northern Territory.
•	Aboriginal people want to take our property, take land and resources, and then shut us out.
•	It’s true that "real" Aboriginal people have traditional rights, but they still should not be able to do anything which negatively affects "our" interests.
•	Indigenous rights create disastrous delays for industry.
•	Aboriginal institutions are demanding more powers than elected governments, effectively taking away governments’ supremacy. Governments will lose the capacity to regulate in the most basic things, like access to the seas and waters.
•	We will become a society beholden to Aboriginal people, having to grovel for permission to do things which we should have every right to do.
•	This is not an abstract threat; this will affect you very personally. You will lose personal things like your right and ability to earn a living.
•	Rights like the "historic public right to fish" are under threat, representing a “fundamental and systematic assault on the Australian way of life”.
•	Indigenous rights and land councils are way out of step with prevailing values and deliver special rights to Indigenous people which allow them to flout the law. We should all have the same rights and be treated equally.
•	Aboriginal rights are the opposite of “a stable, harmonious and industrious society”.
•	Land council “white advisers are pursuing agendas of their own, without regard to the impact on society and without regard to the implications for local Aborigines”. Their “holy grail” is “the grandfather of all cash settlements”.
•	Those who support Indigenous rights are misguided. It is not even in the interests of Aboriginal people if industry collapses, division deepens etc – supporters are being gravely misled.
Denis Burke’s arguments use an “us” and “them” subtext, encouraging “Territorians” (by which he often implicitly refers to non-Indigenous Territorians) to fear the loss of their property, rights and control. This is reinforced by an appeal to formal equality arguments, which also act to undermine understanding and acceptance of the distinctive cultural differences and legal and inherent rights of Indigenous Territorians.
Formal equality arguments are also emphasised in the main arguments being used against a treaty in the wider domain of daily newspapers and politicians’ speeches:
•	It would divide Australia.
•	It would create two classes of Australians.
•	It’s beside the point – the sensible and responsible approach is to get health, education improvements and the like (ie, ‘practical reconciliation’ measures).
•	It’s not what Indigenous people want, just what some radical "black arm band" leaders want.
•	It would not be good for Indigenous people.
•	The economic and social costs would be astronomical, while the benefits would be largely theoretical, so it’s just not worth it.
•	Why should a treaty process have any chance of reducing Indigenous problems, when nothing else seems to have?
•	A treaty is simply shorthand for a separate Indigenous nation; Australia’s sovereignty would be threatened.
•	The status of Indigenous people is not a question which is up for discussion. They are Australians like the rest of us, end of discussion.
There are also overt arguments aimed squarely at the moral position of those who support Indigenous rights and a treaty process. Many of these are used in support of practical reconciliation (we need to attack the poverty and other human needs problems first – not that practical reconciliation could possibly do this!).
Others (for example, Gary Johns) attempt to create a moral high ground based essentially on assimilation:
•	The “Great Moral Claim” on which the treaty proposal is based is no more than "we were here first." Or:
•	The principles of "western civilisation" will deliver much more for Indigenous people than a treaty, for example, the great principle that all people are created equal.
Underpinning such arguments are five "psychological strategies" or covert arguments being used to undermine public support for a treaty process. These are:
1. 	“Divide and Conquer”: 
•	keep the stakeholders apart and misinformed, fearful of each other and alienated.
•	People who are pushing for a treaty are urban middle classes, radical blacks and lawyers – this means these are ‘tricky’ people who are trying to trick trusting supporters.
•	Treaty is a dangerously radical proposal which will DESTROY what reconciliation has achieved so far.
•	a treaty will lock in a permanently unequal status for Indigenous people - separate development will ghettoise them.
2. 	Focus on Our Own Social Identity:
 This strategy keeps us divided and is closely related to the first approach. By getting us to separate into two camps, we come to focus on the qualities and needs of our own "in group" and, correspondingly, to argue against those of the "out group." These kinds of argument are very evident in what Denis Burke had to say, for example.
3. 	Misinformation and Disinformation: 
•	The less people are informed and feel confident of their facts on issues around a treaty, the less they will support it.
•	There’s already SO MUCH legislation giving special rights to Indigenous people.
•	Indigenous expenditure has risen massively over recent years and is now a huge $2 billion per annum.
Many arguments advanced against a treaty process are simply intended to produce a feeling of such uncertainty about the facts that the will to act dissolves. For example, the argument that intermarriage is already deciding the future, because the majority of Indigenous people are already married to non-Indigenous people. Without even mentioning the treaty proposal, the covert message is that a treaty process is already obsolete because Indigenous people are voting with their feet NOT to be separate. Such arguments can be very disarming for many supporters.
Part of the misinformation strategy is to covertly instil fear - as when Paddy McGuiness warned in the Sydney Morning Herald in February last year that "reconciliation" is a word being used to cloak other agendas. Fear is used to create mistrust. Even his word "cloak" suggests deception!
4. 	Ignorance and Misconception – Acceptance of negative images as a “norm”:
When people do not see much of a minority group (like Indigenous Australians), and most of the images they do see are connected with poverty, violence, ill health, corruption and so on, they tend to interpret those features to be the norm for that group as a whole.
Once these impressions have been created, people are likely to absorb and believe negative interpretations about the culture as a whole, for example:
•	Indigenous people are lying about the spiritual and cultural importance of traditional country and would sell the land for money as soon as look at it;
•	self-determination would simply be more money for grog.
5. 	Attributing Blame to Others:
When we see others in a situation of disadvantage, we tend to attribute their situation to intrinsic causes. In other words, we assume that the situation is their own fault. This natural tendency has been extensively exploited in arguments designed to reduce sympathy for Indigenous rights.
A similar, powerful belief – which many of us relate to as ‘the Protestant work ethic’ suggests to many non-Indigenous people that Indigenous Australians have to earn the right to a treaty process; they must be felt by non-Indigenous people to have earned it, to be deserving of a treaty. This value base is evident in many of the arguments which can be found in the media and in the statements of politicians and others against a treaty process.
In this "blame the victim" area, arguments which appeal to a sense that it is all far too hard and hopeless are also popular. For example, a treaty won’t work because:
•	There is too much internal in-fighting amongst Indigenous people.
•	no single Indigenous group would be allowed to represent Indigenous people as a whole.
•	Australia has tried devolution of authority to Indigenous institutions, but they mismanage things, are corrupt etc.
•	Indigenous organisations are run by self-interested "whites" calling themselves "blacks".
Conclusion
Countering such arguments and the factual errors on which they are based represents a significant challenge for the community education which needs to take place in order to advance the cause of a treaty process. The old adage ‘know your enemy’ is one we certainly need to take to heart, and by far our biggest enemies are fear and ignorance.
But, by way of concluding here, I want to comment briefly on one of the more positive messages which we can be communicating about a treaty process in order to overcome the fear and ignorance we face. And that is to draw attention to the fact that the process of ‘treating’ or agreement-making is one which this country has already embraced in many different ways. However, this culture of agreement-making is one which few Australians are aware. And there is good reason for this because, by and large, such agreements have been uncontroversial – struck as a result of the pragmatic need to recognise legitimate interests and to make relationships work. I refer here of such things as native title agreements, regional agreements, Indigenous Land Use Agreements, agreements between mining companies and Indigenous custodians and land owners, local government agreements of various kinds, national park joint management agreements – the list is considerable. And there are literally hundreds of them already in existence.
To my way of thinking this is the good news story and fertile ground on which we can build public confidence that a treaty process is the right way to proceed. Australians need to be made aware that a treaty process is not, in this respect, a huge leap into darkness. A treaty process can in fact provide us secure, lasting frameworks for reaching agreement on a wide range of issues and for squarely facing the ‘unfinished business’ of reconciliation.
Thank you.